RealGM Top 100 List #44

[penbeast0]

McHale v. Mutombo -- clearly McHale has a terrific offensive edge in terms of scoring, Mutombo has a strong edge in terms of rebounding and defense accolades.

McHale 12 years 31.0mpg
11.4reb 2.7ast 3.0to 27.8pts per 100 possessions @ .605ts%
10.9 2.4 2.8 27.6 @ .618 for playoffs
3x1st All-Defense, 2x 2nd All-Defense

Mutombo 16 years (+2 partials) 30.8mpg
17.6reb 1.8ast 3.1to 16.7pts per 100 possessions @ .573ts%
17.2 1.4 2.7 16.4 @ .587 for playoffs
4x DPOY 4x1st All-Defense 3x2nd All-Defense

. . . .

Reed v Cowens v. Beaty

All three shared some things in common . . . undersized, mobile centers with good range and good defense. Reed is the strongest, Cowens the most physical, Beaty has a Bill Laimbeer/Vlade Divac rep for annoying opps with a lot of dirty/veteran tricks.

All had shortened careers, Reed played only 7 years over 20 games in a season, Cowens played 10 but with increasing missed games plus a half year attempted comeback in Milwaukee, Beaty played 12 seasons (2 as reserve) but 2 were cut short by his recurring knee injuries; it's not a coincidence that his best season (72 in Utah) came after being forced to sit out a year. Beaty is considered a step down from Reed and Cowens but seems a reasonable comp to show their strengths.

Prime numbers

Reed (67-71) 20.5ppg 13.5reb 2ast .540ts%
Cowens (72-76) 19.5ppg 15.5reb 4ast .495ts%
Beaty* (65-69) 20ppg 12reb 1.5ast .535ts%
*(using NBA numbers only)

As the numbers show, Cowens was the best passer and rebounder, but the worst shooter. Reed is slightly better than Beaty in all areas but only slightly (and the NBA had expansion in these years so Reed was playing against slightly inferior competition). Beaty has the longevity edge. Very comparable players if you consider their defensive abilities roughly equal. I didn't use Beaty's ABA years because I don't want to get into a debate about how much to discount them.

Right now I think the best wing left is Alex English, a bit above Dantley, Carter, or Richmond. I am open to arguments for Sam Jones or Paul Arizin but the comps we had 2 threads ago had them looking like a bit below Dolph Schayes who I don't have up with the best bigs left, though I am open to being convinced.

There are also a lot of short career prospects. The shortest and greatest peak would be Walton; others would include Connie Hawkins, Tracy McGrady, or Sidney Moncrief..

[trex_8063]

Dolph Schayes (‘50-’61)---12-year span, 850 rs games
Estimate Per 100 possessions (rs): 23.8 pts, 15.7 reb, 3.8 ast @ 49.1% TS% (+4.4 to league avg)
*PER 22.9, .206 WS/48 in 36.9 mpg (for '52-'61).
Was even better in playoffs.....
Estimated Per 100 possessions (playoffs): 25.1 pts, 16.0 reb, 3.5 ast @ .507 TS%
*24.0 PER, .201 WS/48 in 36.0 mpg (for '52-'61).
Career rs WS: 142.4 (#26 all-time)
Career playoff WS: 14.0 (#44 all-time)

#44 all-time in MVP Award Shares (and MVP was not something that was even awarded during his first SIX seasons). He was in the top 5 in MVP voting three times, six times in the top 8. In ‘58 he finished 2nd only to Bill Russell (even ahead of Bob Pettit!).
In the RealGM RPoY project, he was rated the 3rd-best player in both ‘57 and ‘58 (behind only Russell and Pettit), was rated THE BEST player in the game in ‘55. Is at least top 6 two other seasons. Overall he’s #24 in RealGM RPoY Shares.

12-time All-NBA team (6 1st Teams, 6 2nd Teams).

Era considerations apply, but if I can piggy-back on Owly's internal consistency comments: this forum did vote George Mikan (whose career is even earlier, marginally, and whose career was barely half the length of Schayes's) in at #24. And while Schayes was not as dominant as Mikan, the above shows that he was indeed elite for many years: basically TWICE as long as Mikan, and did so through about half of the Bill Russell era. He only stopped being one of the league's elite when he was getting somewhat far north of age 30 (about 33 to be precise). fyi, some other players (already voted in) who were pretty diminished (if not out-right "fell off a cliff") by age 33 or sooner include: Walt Frazier, Bob Pettit (retired before hitting 33), George Mikan, Elgin Baylor, Isiah Thomas (retired at age 33), and I suspect Dwyane Wade. Realistically, I'm not sure we can hold fading effectiveness at age 33 against him.
And he did actually have two more fair-to-decent role player years after that. His only completely ineffectual year was his final season (was 35 going into it).

During his peak years, it could even be said that he was one of a few players who "dominated" the game (albeit to a smaller degree than Mikan).

During his best 5-year span ('54-'58), which is mostly in the shot-clock era....
Dolph Schayes (‘54-’58)
Estimate Per 100 possessions (rs): 24.7 pts, 15.5 reb, 3.6 ast @ .499 TS% (avg +4.8% to league)
PER 24.0, .231 WS/48 in 37.4 mpg
Again, looks even marginally better in post-season....
Estimated Per 100 possessions (playoffs): 25.0 pts, 16.8 reb, 3.6 ast @ .501 TS%
PER 25.6, .229 WS/48 in 34.8 mpg.


Regarding speculation on era-translation, I'd like to again just throw out that reminder that it is indeed just speculation.
Further, I think there's something to be said for the best of the best in your own time, and helping to carry forth the evolution and grow the popularity of the game. Leonardo di Vinci's understanding of physics and engineering would be considered pretty infantile relative to modern inventors and engineers. Doesn't change the fact that he was a genius. I tend to feel somewhat similarly about basketball's history.

"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
--Isaac Newton

I can't find it in myself to disregard the achievements of past greats (especially when they were AS ELITE as the above indicates) based on statements like "meh, not athletic enough to dominate in the modern game" or similar.

Vote: Dolph Schayes

[tsherkin]

Hmmmm...

Can't really say I think Schayes belongs here, so I won't be voting for him.

Willis Reed should be gaining traction now, and was clearly better than Schayes, IMO. Probably better than Cowens, too, who was surprisingly bad as a scoring threat. All those jumpers really didn't do him any favors, I suppose. We're soon approaching Nique's space, too. English, Dantley. Moncrief had 7 years before he fell apart, 5 of them really noteworthy; don't think longevity lets him be part of this section, despite his obvious talent and skill. Might be thinking about KJ, but he's only marginally better than Moncrief ITO longevity (his last 5 seasons were 70 games and under, 5 of his last 7 were 56 or less, etc, etc. Grant Hill comes to mind, as does McGrady. Vince comes to mind. Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond. Tony Parker. Penny isn't there yet, but his name should be coming up soon-ish. AI isn't far away. Bernard King.

Chris Mullin has a WIIIICKED 6-year prime (25.0, 5.3, 4.2, 59.9% TS, 117 ORTG), so he's definitely worth thinking about.

Circling back to Vince Carter, we're talking about a guy entering his 17th season, which is typically a shocker for players initially known for athletic prowess. Career 20.2, 4.9, 3.7 player (53.8% TS, 109 ORTG).

Toronto peak was 00-02 (217/246 GP), 26.1 ppg (peaked at 27.6), 5.6 rpg, 3.9 apg, 53.8% TS (brought down by his injured 02 campaign), 111 ORTG.

New Jersey peak was 06-09, but of course his half season in 05 was remarkable as well.

05: 57 GP, 27.5 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 4.7 apg, 55.6% TS, 110 ORTG

06-09: 22.9 ppg, 5.7 apg, 4.7 apg, 54.7% TS, 110 ORTG

So as you can see, not a properly stunning offensive player, but he had some moments and played at a Melo-ish level, with superior playmaking and passing compared to Anthony (and general perception of Carter as a player). He's been in the league a long time, and reinvented himself as a roleplayer for first the 2010 Magic, then the Suns, and for the past 3 seasons he's been contributing nicely to the Mavericks. He's signed with the Grizzlies now, so we'll see what he's got. Has really developed his 3pt shot as a roleplayer. Had it earlier in his career, for sure, but he's doing very well with the Mavs, so Memphis has that to look forward to when he finally arrives.


===


I think this slot is probably going to a SF for me. I like Reed, but I think I may actually have to vote: Vince Carter here.


EDIT:

Post wouldn't be complete without some English numbers. Pace is a factor, BUUUUTTT....

He played 80-82 games in all seasons of his 81-89 prime.

26.9 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 4.6 apg, 55.7% TS, 113 ORTG

Food for thought. Still voting Vince.

[john248]

Leaning Ray Allen, McHale, and maybe McGrady about now. Pau, Nique, and Reed deserve a mention too.

[Quotatious]

Alex English (gets overlooked, as always...if tsherkin mentioned guys like Richmond or Mullin, I don't see why English doesn't deserve to be mentioned) and Elvin Hayes are my top candidates here. Will elaborate later on. Also considering Iverson and McGrady, but a bit lower than English/Hayes.

EDIT - oh, well, tsherkin edited his post and added English. I'm glad he did.

[Moonbeam]

Sorry I missed the last vote! I'm leaning Schayes, but also hope to take a close look at Reed, Cowens, Jones, McHale, Dantley, English, and Wilkins.

For those interested in a comparison of 80s SFs, I did a bit of analysis in this thread.

Attempting to decompose OWS:

Spoiler:

I love looking at these guys because most of my favorite players are small forwards, and it was such an exciting time to watch, as these guys were each capable of amazing offensive outbursts.

One thing I've taken a hard look at is how to weigh up offensive statistics in the context of team offense. There has been a fair bit of discussion in the Top 100 poll about how to gauge individual performance based on team performance (e.g. Garnett's Minny teams did not generally excel on defense, how to compare Kidd's team offenses to Payton's given teammate quality), so I tried to come up with a rough model of expectations for team offense.

I used offensive win shares as the basis for this analysis. I know many aren't happy with OWS, but on a team-level, it is very strongly correlated with offensive rating, which is a good measure of overall team offensive performance. I looked at all regular season data from 1977-2014 to come up with a set of aging curves to encompass different types of peak shapes. I've used five different levels of peak sharpness and five different peak ages (21, 24, 27, 30, and 33), which makes it possible to model a player's career based on OWS/48, like this:



This is a very simple approach, but I wanted something specific enough to broadly capture the relationship between offensive production and aging, but not too specific as to produce perfect models - I'm interested in the deviations from expectations, after all, so I'm happy with a bit of noise.

Based on these curves of expected OWS/48, I then looked at team offense relative to expectations as judged by total OWS. I'm still looking to road-test this analysis, so if you know of any instances where you felt a team overachieved or underachieved its talent level, I'd be eager to check it against my model!

I parsed out performance relative to expectations for each of these players plus Larry Bird (in >28 MPG seasons) and their respective teammates as a whole. Why 28 MPG? I wanted to include enough seasons to get a big picture view, plus I wanted to avoid discontinuities where I could (e.g. Bernard King's 1988 season). Here are the resulting plots of player OWS, player expected OWS, teammate ("help") OWS and expected teammate OWS:

















Over this span, here are the MP-weighted averages for player OWS, % of team OWS, both rate and raw difference of help OWS to expectations:

Code: Select all

Player   WtOWS   %Off  Help Rate  Help Diff
Aguirre  5.112  0.166    1.018      +0.428
Bird     7.429  0.220    1.048      +1.056
Dantley  8.803  0.394    0.844      -2.155
English  6.536  0.246    1.016      +0.307
Johnson  5.954  0.253    1.040      +0.636
King     4.466  0.269    0.887      -1.413
Wilkins  6.084  0.255    1.015      +0.260
Worthy   5.065  0.155    1.116      +2.809


On the surface, it looks like Dantley (and to a lesser extent, King) may be getting their Win Shares somewhat at the expense of teammates, while Bird and Worthy are associated with boosts for their teammates. How much praise (or blame) should be apportioned for performance of teammates is up for debate, but I think it at least provides a framework for comparison.

Taking a look at the 5-year intervals in the OP:

Code: Select all

Player  Years   WtOWS   %Off  Help Rate  Help Diff
Aguirre 84-88   5.920  0.187    1.041      +1.005
Bird    84-88   9.933  0.302    0.989      -0.257
Dantley 80-84  11.213  0.553    1.083      +0.606
English 82-86   7.849  0.268    1.026      +0.548
Johnson 79-83   7.192  0.275    1.057      +0.984
King    81-85   6.675  0.323    0.919      -1.268
Wilkins 86-90   7.835  0.270    1.158      +2.891
Worthy  86-90   6.465  0.180    1.181      +4.496


Dantley is clearly the leader in both OWS and percentage of team offense (some of those supporting casts in Utah look dreadful), but perhaps he didn't provide the "lift" as others (or worse, perhaps his presence deflated his teammates offense). If we split his career into phases, it seems his early career is where his teammates fared the worst (0.731 rate, fit issues with Lakers?), while in Utah they performed nearly to (awful) expectations (0.968 rate), while in Detroit during 87-88, the rate fell to 0.801 (problems of fit with Isiah?), and across 89-90, it was 0.935.

I don't think Worthy's help numbers are attributable to him so much as they are to Magic, but he clearly fit into Showtime quite well. Wilkins looks like he could have provided decent lift across 86-90, and Aguirre's apparent issues with teammates did not seem to affect his teams' offenses.

Head to head against top-flight SFs of the 80s:

Spoiler:

I've compiled some extensive head to head comparisons for Bird, Erving, Aguirre, Dantley, English, Johnson, King, Wilkins, and Worthy, keeping games in seasons where both players averaged at least 27 MPG. I know that head-to-head matchups aren't the best way of evaluating players, but I thought it would make for an interesting comparison to see how the high-scoring duels panned out overall.

A full set of spreadsheets with yearly comparisons of each player against all of the others collectively, as well as the 36 individual player vs. player matchups here.

Below I'll post the summaries for each player against all of the others collectively. TS values with asterisks imply that up to half of the games in that season have missing statistics.

The column "Vs. Exp" is a comparison of team margin vs. SRS expectations, taking into account homecourt advantage. Each of the columns labelled "Rel" indicate difference from season averages of the previous column.

Larry Bird:

As expected, Bird enjoyed great team success against the competition, sporting a .605 winning percentage. He outscored his opponents by about a point on TS 2% better than his opponents (since 1982), and had massive advantages in rebounds and assists, as you would expect. Interestingly, both his TS and his opponents' TS dropped by more than 2% from their respective averages.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel   RPG   Rel   APG   Rel    TS      Rel
Bird     1980   11   7  -0.62  22.78  +1.50   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1980    7  11  +0.62  26.00  +1.85   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Bird     1981   14  10  -0.08  23.13  +1.89   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1981   10  14  +0.08  24.38  +0.49   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Bird     1982   13   9  +2.22  21.09  -1.78   NA    NA    NA    NA   .4644* -.0925
Top SFs  1982    9  13  -2.22  22.18  -1.34   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5470* -.0425
Bird     1983   19  13  +1.60  23.38  -0.26   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5412  -.0194
Top SFs  1983   13  19  -1.60  20.19  -1.11   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5145  -.0361
Bird     1984   29  18  -0.97  24.49  +0.34   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5533  +.0010
Top SFs  1984   18  29  +0.97  23.04  +0.97   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5511  -.0253
Bird     1985   23  11  +0.51  27.29  -1.39   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5731  -.0121
Top SFs  1985   11  23  -0.51  22.97  +0.14   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5265  -.0320
Bird     1986   22   4  +0.57  25.54  -0.25  9.88 +0.07  7.23 +0.44  .5735  -.0068
Top SFs  1986    4  22  -0.57  25.19  -0.38  5.54 -0.81  3.38 +0.25  .5349  -.0196
Bird     1987   18  15  -0.98  26.09  -1.96  9.30 +0.09  7.64 -0.01  .5831  -.0285
Top SFs  1987   15  18  +0.98  23.97  +1.81  4.24 -0.79  3.03 +0.23  .5638  -.0058
Bird     1988   19  16  -1.11  26.34  -3.59  8.89 -0.36  6.06 -0.09  .5722  -.0356
Top SFs  1988   16  19  +1.11  22.43  -1.41  4.11 -0.67  2.66 -0.27  .5297  -.0287
Bird     1989    0   1  -9.61  24.00  +4.67 10.00 +3.83  6.00 +1.17  .6682  +.1520
Top SFs  1989    1   0  +9.61  31.00 +12.62  4.00 +0.10  5.00 +2.79  .7033  +.0898
Bird     1990    5   7  -1.44  23.92  -0.35 10.58 +1.09  6.50 -0.99  .5383  -.0072
Top SFs  1990    7   5  +1.44  21.92  -0.95  3.25 -2.15  2.92 -0.51  .5119  -.0398
Bird     1991    4   3  +1.16  15.29  -4.11  7.86 -0.63  7.71 +0.53  .4646  -.0657
Top SFs  1991    3   4  -1.16  20.14  -5.85  5.71 -1.53  2.29 -1.39  .5029  -.0390
Bird     1992    1   2  -8.98  16.67  -3.51  7.67 -1.98  6.00 -0.80  .4941  -.0534
Top SFs  1992    2   1  +8.98  28.00  +2.65  5.67 -0.90  4.00 -0.06  .5271  -.0032
Bird     Total 178 116  -0.15  24.39  -0.82  9.32 -0.01  6.91 -0.01  .5560  -.0209
Top SFs  Total 116 178  +0.15  23.13  -0.00  4.51 -0.94  2.98 -0.07  .5368  -.0260


Julius Erving:

I was a little surprised that Dr. J ended up on the wrong end of the scoring comparison on nearly identical efficiency to his opponents. Still, the bulk of the data came as he was winding down his career, with rebounding, assist and TS stats only available from 1982 onward. Still, his teams enjoyed the third best winning percentage among the 9 players considered here.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
Erving   1977    1   2  -9.35  14.67 -6.92   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1977    2   1  +9.35  19.00 -1.31   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Erving   1978    6   4  +0.25  19.40 -1.25   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1978    4   6  -0.25  23.40 +1.84   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Erving   1979    8   7  -2.90  23.07 -0.05   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1979    7   8  +2.90  22.07 +1.73   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Erving   1980   13   5  +1.89  27.17 +0.24   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1980    5  13  -1.89  21.06 +0.04   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Erving   1981   17  14  -0.49  23.94 -0.63   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1981   14  17  +0.49  26.06 +4.39   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Erving   1982   16  14  -0.05  23.10 -1.27  7.33 +0.46  4.83 +0.90  .5964 +.0037
Top SFs  1982   14  16  +0.05  19.53 -1.69  9.37 +1.16  4.53 -0.14  .5095 -.0620
Erving   1983   24   7  +2.10  19.61 -1.80  7.29 +0.47  3.48 -0.17  .5339 -.0324
Top SFs  1983    7  24  -2.10  21.81 -0.11  7.42 +0.62  3.39 -0.38  .5231 -.0274
Erving   1984   16  13  +1.28  21.48 -0.95  7.21 +0.30  3.86 -0.15  .5331 -.0289
Top SFs  1984   13  16  -1.28  23.69 -0.11  7.17 +0.22  3.79 -0.04  .5300 -.0357
Erving   1985   14  11  +0.67  18.00 -2.01  5.32 +0.01  3.40 +0.41  .5208 -.0248
Top SFs  1985   11  14  -0.67  28.12 +0.68  7.20 -0.67  4.36 -0.25  .5754 +.0039
Erving   1986    8  10  -1.95  16.06 -2.05  5.39 +0.39  4.17 +0.82  .4936 -.0437
Top SFs  1986   10   8  +1.95  25.61 -1.13  8.06 +0.46  5.17 +0.70  .5320 -.0332
Erving   1987    6   9  -2.08  15.27 -1.48  4.80 +0.40  3.93 +0.75  .4688 -.0583
Top SFs  1987    9   6  +2.08  23.60 -1.60  5.47 -0.83  5.33 +0.88  .5385 -.0426
Erving   Total 129  96  +0.00  20.92 -1.24  6.47 +0.34  3.95 +0.36  .5348 -.0262
Top SFs  Total  96 129  -0.00  23.45 +0.41  7.61 +0.27  4.28 +0.02  .5347 -.0316


Mark Aguirre:

Aguirre has a scoring edge over his opponents on slightly worse efficiency, and is neck and neck in both rebounding and assists since 1986. His teams didn't do so hot, though, with a 0.437 winning percentage (only posting winning records against these opponents twice) and an average performance of 0.52 points worse than SRS expectations.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG    Rel     TS     Rel
Aguirre  1982    3   9  -0.04  24.58 +5.86   NA   NA     NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1982    9   3  +0.04  28.75 +1.85   NA   NA     NA    NA     NA      NA
Aguirre  1983    4  12  -1.87  26.31 +1.88   NA   NA     NA    NA   .5322* -.0032
Top SFs  1983   12   4  +1.87  25.56 +1.14   NA   NA     NA    NA   .5580* +.0018
Aguirre  1984   13  17  -0.57  27.73 -1.76   NA   NA     NA    NA   .5587  -.0129
Top SFs  1984   17  13  +0.57  23.67 +1.66   NA   NA     NA    NA   .5964  +.0093
Aguirre  1985   10  16  -4.23  27.54 +1.85   NA   NA     NA    NA   .5681  +.0048
Top SFs  1985   16  10  +4.23  21.77 -1.79   NA   NA     NA    NA   .5408  -.0209
Aguirre  1986   13  17  -0.11  21.43 -1.13  5.73 -0.28  4.77 +0.19  .5205  -.0269
Top SFs  1986   17  13  +0.11  23.00 -1.08  5.60 +0.07  3.70 +0.31  .5699  -.0123
Aguirre  1987   10   9  -0.01  26.84 +1.14  4.26 -1.07  2.84 -0.33  .5651  +.0049
Top SFs  1987    9  10  +0.01  23.11 -1.06  6.26 +1.04  3.37 -0.64  .5435  -.0175
Aguirre  1988   13  17  +0.41  25.00 -0.09  5.63 -0.00  3.60 -0.01  .5541  +.0152
Top SFs  1988   17  13  -0.41  23.73 +0.82  4.97 -0.11  4.33 +0.24  .5511  -.0063
Aguirre  1989   14   6  +2.70  15.55 -2.41  4.55 -0.10  3.70 +0.50  .5239  -.0026
Top SFs  1989    6  14  -2.70  18.50 -4.26  4.05 -1.25  3.45 -0.14  .4933  -.0592
Aguirre  Total  80 103  -0.52  24.47 +0.18  5.18 -0.31  3.83 +0.09  .5487  -.0033
Top SFs  Total 103  80  +0.52  23.17 -0.38  5.22 -0.07  3.78 +0.02  .5541  -.0131


Adrian Dantley:

As you might expect, Dantley has the largest scoring margin of the 9 players considered here, outgunning his opponents by over 3 PPG on nearly 8% better TS. Team success in Utah was predictably poor (particularly 1985 and 1986), though not relative to SRS expectations. In fact, his teams tended to outperform their SRS expectations against this set of opponents. Most surprising may be that his opponents' scoring average was more than a point less than their respective season averages overall, and while his time in Detroit did contribute to that, his opponents weren't going crazy on him in Utah, even prior to the Jazz becoming good on defense in 1983. He loses out on rebounds and assists, though I imagine this is somewhat distorted by the fact the data is mostly available after he assumed a reduced role in Detroit and Dallas.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS     Rel
Dantley  1977    2   1  +9.35  19.00 -1.31   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1977    1   2  -9.35  14.67 -6.92   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1978    8   3  +0.86  21.64 +0.29   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1978    3   8  -0.86  18.82 -2.47   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1979    9   4  +3.69  20.92 +3.59   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1979    4   9  -3.69  18.08 -2.96   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1980    4   7  +0.88  27.82 -0.17   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1980    7   4  -0.88  21.91 +0.57   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1981    6  10  +3.14  34.69 +4.04   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1981   10   6  -3.14  21.44 -1.22   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1982    8  14  +0.36  33.36 +3.03   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Top SFs  1982   14   8  -0.36  23.45 +1.21   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA      NA
Dantley  1983    2   3  -4.60  32.40 +1.67   NA    NA    NA    NA   .7066* +.0453
Top SFs  1983    3   2  +4.60  26.80 +2.86   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5618* +.0052
Dantley  1984   12  18  -2.63  31.13 +0.53   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6495  -.0025
Top SFs  1984   18  12  +2.63  24.07 +0.17   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5593  -.0108
Dantley  1985    8  16  +0.45  25.21 -1.37   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6092  +.0019
Top SFs  1985   16   8  -0.45  24.42 -0.32   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5601  +.0019
Dantley  1986    5  17  -0.68  29.18 -0.65  6.00 +0.80  3.82 +0.34  .6256  -.0030
Top SFs  1986   17   5  +0.68  20.95 -2.28  5.82 -0.09  3.73 -0.20  .5434  -.0221
Dantley  1987   18  13  +5.17  20.68 -0.83  4.29 +0.19  2.03 +0.03  .6055  -.0087
Top SFs  1987   13  18  -5.17  24.29 -1.57  7.03 +0.35  4.52 -0.24  .5360  -.0313
Dantley  1988   19  17  +0.08  20.00 +0.00  3.69 +0.40  2.06 -0.42  .6187  -.0003
Top SFs  1988   17  19  -0.08  22.00 -2.38  6.94 +0.56  4.36 +0.06  .5432  -.0284
Dantley  1989   11   6  +5.00  19.53 +0.38  3.71 -0.62  1.82 -0.52  .6050  +.0243
Top SFs  1989    6  11  -5.00  21.00 -1.63  6.12 +0.51  3.00 -0.49  .5164  -.0211
Dantley  1990    3   4  +1.63  18.57 +3.86  4.29 +0.46  1.00 -0.78  .6088  +.0532
Top SFs  1990    4   3  -1.63  20.29 -1.07  5.43 +0.36  4.43 +0.93  .5136  -.0382
Dantley  Total 115 133  +1.24  25.52 +0.64  4.35 +0.27  2.29 -0.18  .6245  +.0033
Top SFs  Total 133 115  -1.24  22.31 -1.13  6.53 +0.36  4.08 -0.10  .5458  -.0179


Alex English:

English's scoring is right on par with that of his opponents, but on 5% worse efficiency. I imagine a lot of that can be chalked up to Denver's poor team defense throughout his time there. Like Erving and Dantley, his rebounding and playmaking abilities are probably undersold by the totals, although he enjoys an edge in assists even in his later years. Team success was quite variable, with 1985 shining as expected, but 1987 looking particularly troublesome.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
English  1979    5  10  +0.29  14.80 -1.24   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1979   10   5  -0.29  21.27 -0.66   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1980    2  10  -1.80  13.17 -2.83   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1980   10   2  +1.80  23.75 -0.60   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1981    7  10  -0.87  22.00 -1.81   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1981   10   7  +0.87  29.82 +4.80   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1982   12   9  -1.04  26.14 +0.75   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1982    9  12  +1.04  30.43 +6.60   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
English  1983    6  10  +0.08  27.94 -0.43   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5331 -.0281
Top SFs  1983   10   6  -0.08  24.56 +1.62   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5754 +.0232
English  1984   13  19  +0.44  26.88 +0.45   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5713 +.0016
Top SFs  1984   19  13  -0.44  27.63 +2.11   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6273 +.0274
English  1985   22  16  +0.26  27.92 -0.00   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5743 +.0131
Top SFs  1985   16  22  -0.26  22.47 -0.48   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5983 +.0273
English  1986   14  10  +2.42  28.63 -1.18  4.63 -0.38  4.13 +0.17  .5399 -.0218
Top SFs  1986   10  14  -2.42  23.04 -0.47  7.00 +0.96  3.63 -0.18  .5722 -.0059
English  1987    2  18  -8.07  27.35 -1.25  3.80 -0.40  3.80 -1.35  .5493 -.0001
Top SFs  1987   18   2  +8.07  25.05 +2.27  5.45 -0.14  3.65 +0.52  .6394 +.0701
English  1988   13  10  -0.80  26.00 +1.00  4.78 +0.12  4.61 -0.10  .5374 +.0028
Top SFs  1988   10  13  +0.80  22.13 -1.81  5.74 +0.17  3.52 -0.12  .5757 +.0187
English  1989    6   8  -2.06  23.79 -2.74  4.29 +0.31  4.86 +0.19  .4797 -.0514
Top SFs  1989    8   6  +2.06  24.07 +3.65  6.14 +0.80  4.64 +1.29  .5658 +.0204
English  1990    4   8  -2.26  16.00 -1.91  3.25 -0.33  2.92 +0.10  .4737 -.0480
Top SFs  1990    8   4  +2.26  21.83 +0.13  8.17 +2.05  4.08 +0.16  .5944 +.0349
English  Total 106 138  -0.85  24.70 -0.62  4.26 -0.15  4.13 -0.23  .5458 -.0082
Top SFs  Total 138 106  +0.85  24.77 +1.33  6.38 +0.65  3.82 +0.25  .5982 +.0269


Marques Johnson:

Known as one of the strongest defenders of the group, his opponents' PPG did indeed dip by nearly a point, though he still gave up an edge in scoring. The totals are perhaps the most skewed against him than anyone, as Johnson's best years statistically came when most rebound, assist and TS game logs were unavailable. His last few seasons with the Clippers drag down his winning percentage from an otherwise quite respectable showing considering he was most often facing Bird and Erving.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel    TS    Rel
Johnson  1978    5   4  +2.01  21.11 +1.65   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Top SFs  1978    4   5  -2.01  26.56 +3.97   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Johnson  1979    7   7  -3.52  22.57 -3.04   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Top SFs  1979    7   7  +3.52  19.86 +0.44   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Johnson  1980    5   6  -0.99  23.18 +1.48   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Top SFs  1980    6   5  +0.99  22.27 -1.93   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Johnson  1981   12  11  -1.42  22.78 +2.51   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Top SFs  1981   11  12  +1.42  23.83 -0.24   NA    NA    NA    NA    NA     NA
Johnson  1982   11   9  +0.18  16.35 -0.15   NA    NA    NA    NA  .4947 -.0714
Top SFs  1982    9  11  -0.18  23.00 -1.71   NA    NA    NA    NA  .5837 -.0044
Johnson  1983   19  12  +1.57  21.00 -0.43   NA    NA    NA    NA  .5231 -.0200
Top SFs  1983   12  19  -1.57  19.81 -2.56   NA    NA    NA    NA  .5102 -.0494
Johnson  1984   17  21  -2.14  21.84 +1.10   NA    NA    NA    NA  .5456 +.0117
Top SFs  1984   21  17  +2.14  21.82 -1.90   NA    NA    NA    NA  .5530 -.0114
Johnson  1985    8  14  +1.71  16.86 +0.46   NA    NA    NA    NA  .5155 +.0268
Top SFs  1985   14   8  -1.71  24.86 -0.04   NA    NA    NA    NA  .5523 -.0220
Johnson  1986    8  16  +0.82  20.54 +0.21  5.38 -0.17  3.25 -0.52 .5655 +.0104
Top SFs  1986   16   8  -0.82  25.75 +0.68  6.13 +0.20  4.67 +0.86 .5749 -.0017
Johnson  1987    0   3  -3.65  14.67 -1.93  3.00 -0.30  2.67 -0.13 .5584 +.0799
Top SFs  1987    3   0  +3.65  24.67 +1.95  6.33 +1.31  5.33 +2.16 .5964 +.0463
Johnson  Total  92 103  -0.30  20.52 +0.42  5.11 -0.19  3.19 -0.48 .5346 -.0008
Top SFs  Total 103  92  +0.30  22.83 -0.77  6.15 +0.33  4.74 +1.00 .5514 -.0180


Bernard King:

A tale of really three careers here, as his stints with New Jersey and Golden State saw bad to ho hum team success but general edges in scoring for King, his 83-85 NYK glory years saw a growing scoring gap but further poor team results, and his post-injury career saw King generally losing the scoring and efficiency battle handily and similar poor team success. The .389 winning percentage is the worst of all 9 players. It's just a shame that his knee injury kept us from seeing if he could become even more special.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
King     1978    1   9  -3.02  26.60 +2.44   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1978    9   1  +3.02  20.80 +0.29   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
King     1979    8   9  +2.38  19.29 -2.28   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1979    9   8  -2.38  18.88 -2.21   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
King     1981    7   8  +0.97  26.60 +4.74   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1981    8   7  -0.97  23.87 -1.05   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
King     1982    9   8  -2.16  23.53 +0.33   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
Top SFs  1982    8   9  +2.16  25.18 +0.30   NA    NA    NA    NA     NA     NA
King     1983    9  18  -1.11  21.26 -0.59   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5553 -.0107
Top SFs  1983   18   9  +1.11  18.56 -3.26   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5160 -.0419
King     1984   15  18  +0.05  26.45 +0.13   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6045 -.0143
Top SFs  1984   18  15  -0.05  24.06 +0.87   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5833 +.0243
King     1985    5  12  +3.31  30.35 -2.54   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5386 -.0465
Top SFs  1985   12   5  -3.31  22.76 -1.28   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5617 +.0048
King     1987    0   3  -0.33  23.00 +0.33  5.33 +0.00  3.00 -0.17  .5777 +.0290
Top SFs  1987    3   0  +0.33  28.33 +4.64  4.00 -1.80  3.33 -0.55  .6742 +.0615
King     1988    9  14  +1.44  13.30 -3.91  2.74 -1.32  2.48 -0.30  .5248 -.0249
Top SFs  1988   14   9  -1.44  28.04 +2.69  5.83 +0.16  3.52 -0.19  .5835 +.0062
King     1989    4  11  -1.70  19.73 -0.93  4.40 -0.34  4.47 +0.84  .5232 -.0116
Top SFs  1989   11   4  +1.70  27.60 +6.09  5.53 +0.34  3.40 +0.47  .6159 +.0634
King     1990    8   6  +1.28  20.00 -2.40  4.21 -0.71  3.29 -1.30  .5598 +.0146
Top SFs  1990    6   8  -1.28  21.07 -1.17  6.29 -0.20  3.93 -0.10  .4974 -.0567
King     1991    2   5  -1.26  20.71 -7.68  3.86 -1.13  4.00 -0.56  .4679 -.0590
Top SFs  1991    5   2  +1.26  20.14 -2.63  7.00 -0.60  4.57 +0.11  .4782 -.0648
King     Total  77 121  +0.16  22.48 -0.92  3.73 -0.86  3.34 -0.28  .5558 -.0184
Top SFs  Total 121  77  -0.16  23.12 +0.03  5.90 -0.06  3.69 +0.01  .5630 +.0015


Dominique Wilkins:

Nique had a predictable scoring edge of nearly 3 PPG (though interestingly both his scoring AND his opponents' scoring was down over a point on season averages) on an equally predictable efficiency deficit of nearly 4% TS. The rebounding and assist stats are more relevant here as they encompass a larger part of his career, and the rebounding advantage and assist deficit that is shown is also largely expected. His teams were outperformed to the tune of over a point per game based on SRS expectations (worst of all 9 players considered here), and only in 1987 and 1991 did they post at least 1 more win than opponents.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
Wilkins  1983   10  18  -2.96  15.32 -2.17   NA    NA    NA    NA   .4727 -.0513
Top SFs  1983   18  10  +2.96  23.82 +0.90   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5561 -.0011
Wilkins  1984   15  17  +1.62  20.75 -0.85   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5029 -.0283
Top SFs  1984   17  15  -1.62  22.19 -1.24   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5608 -.0102
Wilkins  1985    3  15  -2.60  28.78 +1.41   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5187 +.0046
Top SFs  1985   15   3  +2.60  28.61 +3.00   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5671 -.0053
Wilkins  1986    9  15  -2.06  28.96 -1.38  7.25 -0.67  3.00 +0.36  .5295 -.0064
Top SFs  1986   15   9  +2.06  23.38 -0.35  6.42 -0.94  4.67 -0.43  .5672 -.0041
Wilkins  1987   14  10  -1.40  28.50 -0.54  6.25 -0.00  3.25 -0.05  .5258 -.0169
Top SFs  1987   10  14  +1.40  22.04 -1.28  5.63 -0.03  4.08 +0.10  .5557 -.0333
Wilkins  1988   11  16  -1.15  29.63 -1.10  6.11 -0.32  2.33 -0.54  .5190 -.0148
Top SFs  1988   16  11  +1.15  19.96 -4.66  4.78 -1.70  3.78 -0.74  .5525 -.0331
Wilkins  1989    6   9  -3.80  25.07 -1.17  7.00 +0.09  2.33 -0.30  .5368 +.0085
Top SFs  1989    9   6  +3.80  15.80 -3.97  3.93 -0.69  2.93 -0.19  .5307 -.0275
Wilkins  1990    4   9  -0.16  23.23 -3.49  5.08 -1.44  2.15 -0.35  .5294 -.0267
Top SFs  1990    9   4  +0.16  20.54 -0.95  6.00 -0.20  4.00 -0.84  .6291 +.0799
Wilkins  1991    5   3  +3.92  24.13 -1.81  7.50 -1.54  2.63 -0.65  .5538 -.0012
Top SFs  1991    3   5  -3.92  17.75 -5.27  5.00 -1.68  5.63 -0.12  .4939 -.0353
Wilkins  1992    2   1  +7.93  27.00 -1.07  7.33 +0.31  4.33 +0.57  .5335 -.0181
Top SFs  1992    1   2  -7.93  16.00 -4.09  5.00 -3.31  5.00 -1.09  .5017 -.0255
Wilkins  1993    1   1 -15.04  26.00 -3.87  8.50 +1.71  3.00 -0.20  .6366 +.0664
Top SFs  1993    1   1 +15.04  17.50 +2.61  3.50 +0.49  3.50 +0.11  .6034 +.1091
Wilkins  Total  80 114  -1.17  24.71 -1.17  6.54 -0.43  2.72 -0.17  .5192 -.0151
Top SFs  Total 114  80  +1.17  21.91 -1.27  5.32 -0.90  4.09 -0.39  .5590 -.0094


James Worthy:

Big Game James has by far the best team success, with the top winning percentage of .672 and the top performance against SRS expectations, with the Lakers exceeding their lofty SRS expectations by nearly a point and a half, on average. He's the only player in the list who wasn't at least arguably the "leader" on the majority of his teams, and his opponents did score more than 4 PPG than he did (though Worthy's scoring increased relative to season averages by over a point while his opponents' scoring decreased by more than a point). Worthy also had a sizable edge in efficiency at nearly +3% TS relative to opponents. Like Nique, most of his games in these comparisons recorded assists and rebounds, so the deficit in both is more meaningful than it would be for others.

Code: Select all

Player   Year    W   L Vs. Exp  PPG    Rel  RPG   Rel   APG   Rel     TS    Rel
Worthy   1984   24  13  +3.18  15.57 +1.12   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6196 +.0289
Top SFs  1984   13  24  -3.18  24.97 -1.50   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5709 -.0051
Worthy   1985   27   9  +0.23  18.86 +1.24   NA    NA    NA    NA   .6096 +.0090
Top SFs  1985    9  27  -0.23  25.14 -0.74   NA    NA    NA    NA   .5795 +.0176
Worthy   1986   20  10  +0.33  19.83 -0.17  5.23 +0.07  2.57 -0.11  .5950 -.0176
Top SFs  1986   10  20  -0.33  23.63 -1.23  5.83 -0.07  4.37 +0.19  .5537 -.0129
Worthy   1987   19   7  +4.23  21.31 +1.87  5.58 -0.11  3.23 +0.47  .5940 +.0157
Top SFs  1987    7  19  -4.23  23.58 -3.33  5.96 -0.16  3.92 -1.15  .5596 -.0144
Worthy   1988   17  11  +1.43  21.29 +1.58  5.39 +0.41  4.04 +0.18  .5644 -.0063
Top SFs  1988   11  17  -1.43  25.36 +1.27  5.86 +0.77  3.18 -0.36  .5798 +.0188
Worthy   1989    9   9  -1.00  23.67 +3.21  6.50 +0.46  3.72 +0.17  .5560 -.0261
Top SFs  1989    9   9  +1.00  19.56 -1.77  5.28 +0.57  3.50 +0.11  .4992 -.0376
Worthy   1990   11   1  +1.42  21.25 +0.19  7.00 +1.03  4.42 +0.82  .5657 -.0204
Top SFs  1990    1  11  -1.42  18.08 -2.57  5.33 +0.02  2.08 -1.58  .5107 -.0324
Worthy   1991    2   2  -7.67  20.00 -1.41  4.25 -0.31  3.25 -0.28  .4673 -.0639
Top SFs  1991    2   2  +7.67  25.25 -0.28  7.50 +0.63  5.75 +0.86  .5124 -.0233
Worthy   1992    1   1  +1.58  23.50 +3.59  2.50 -3.15  4.00 -0.67  .5293 +.0392
Top SFs  1992    1   1  -1.58  23.00 -1.12  9.00 +0.67  6.00 +0.72  .5300 -.0197
Worthy   1993    1   1 +15.04  17.50 +2.61  3.50 +0.49  3.50 +0.11  .6034 +.1091
Top SFs  1993    1   1 -15.04  26.00 -3.87  8.50 +1.71  3.00 -0.20  .6366 +.0664
Worthy   Total 131  64  +1.47  19.71 +1.23  5.94 +0.19  3.14 +0.16  .5852 -.0005
Top SFs  Total  64 131  -1.47  23.74 -1.25  7.29 +0.86  4.18 -0.39  .5593 -.0038


A lot of the individual comparisons are interesting:

*Bird 35-33 against Erving, with both players having reduced scoring on greatly reduced efficiency.
*Bird 11-0 vs. Aguirre, including an SRS differential to expectations of +4.72, a scoring margin of nearly 6 PPG on nearly +14 TS%.
*Erving 26-5 vs. King despite a big scoring deficit.
*Dantley with a clear edge over English (roughly +5 PPG, +5 wins on +1.25 SRS differential, +10% TS), who has an edge over Wilkins (+1 PPG, +5 SRS differential, +2% TS), who has an arguable edge over Dantley (+7 PPG but -6% TS). Transitive property be damned!

[ThunderDan9]

And at this point, when the likes of Mullin and Richmond come into discussion... we at least have to mention to the player who is
- an MVP,
- a 4-times scoring champion,
- a 7-times All-NBA selection (3-times First Team!)
- a 11-times All-Star etc.

Yes, TS% is a significant metric, but not the alpha and omega of basketball. I would gladly take Iverson over many of the guys already mentioned in these last topics.

[DQuinn1575]

Sam jones was second best player on 5 championship teams and contributor to many more. He was top 5 in mvp voting, and kept off of 1st team all-pro by Oscar and west.
Far more career impact on championships than any player left.


Vote Sam jones


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Witzig-Okashi]

Not a participant in this list (lack of time and lack of suitable knowledge are my main problems ), but I would like to ask when a person like Tiny Archibald will begin to gain traction. Seeing his name in the Bob Ryan-Isiah post made me ponder about him. I doubt he'll make top 50, but where is he fitting on ya'll's top 100?

[Quotatious]

Not a participant in this list (lack of time and lack of suitable knowledge are my main problems ), but I would like to ask when a person like Tiny Archibald will begin to gain traction. Seeing his name in the Bob Ryan-Isiah post made me ponder about him. I doubt he'll make top 50, but where is he fitting on ya'll's top 100?

I can see Tiny making my top 55. I'm really high on his peak (1972-73 - 34 points/11 assists on very good efficiency for his time, which translated to the best offense in the NBA - frankly, I'd take peak Tiny over Isiah and Iverson, as far as little guys are concerned). Not a great longevity as a star, which hurts him, but his prime was pretty good (especially peak). Archibald is in the same category as Kevin Johnson, for me - great peak/prime (comparable/better peak, a bit worse prime than KJ), rather weak longevity. For this reason, I'll probably support KJ somewhere in the late 40s, and Tiny will become a very serious candidate in the early 50s.

[tsherkin]

Tiny should be top 70-ish based on peak. I imagine he'll get in after someone like McAdoo, maybe around Walton?

[penbeast0]

Not a participant in this list (lack of time and lack of suitable knowledge are my main problems ), but I would like to ask when a person like Tiny Archibald will begin to gain traction. Seeing his name in the Bob Ryan-Isiah post made me ponder about him. I doubt he'll make top 50, but where is he fitting on ya'll's top 100?

I can see Tiny making my top 55. I'm really high on his peak (1972-73 - 34 points/11 assists on very good efficiency for his time, which translated to the best offense in the NBA - frankly, I'd take peak Tiny over Isiah and Iverson, as far as little guys are concerned). Not a great longevity as a star, which hurts him, but his prime was pretty good (especially peak). Archibald is in the same category as Kevin Johnson, for me - great peak/prime (comparable/better peak, a bit worse prime than KJ), rather weak longevity. For this reason, I'll probably support KJ somewhere in the late 40s, and Tiny will become a very serious candidate in the early 50s.

Checked on that team offense number and yes, in 1973, Royals had the best offense (and worst defense) in the NBA. However, in the 3 years around that which were also peak Archibald years, they finished 7th/17 (72), 13th/17 (75), and 14th/18 (76) -- Nate played only 35 games in 74 (14th). The main differences were the very efficient (but low scoring) Matt Guokas and Johnny Green on the 2 earlier teams v. flashy gunner Jimmy Walker on the 2 later teams, and a mix of role players moving in and out of the PF position -- in 1973, the great offense/zero defense year, they pulled the D'Antoni trick and used swingman Scott Wedman at PF most of the time giving up rebounding and defense for offensive mismatches. Archibald was also just more explosive before the injury in 74 though his role stayed similar afterwards (except for Jimmy Walker taking more of a second playmaker role).

So, I think just saying Archibald's greatness produced the league's number one offense is overstating the case.

[Quotatious]

So, I think just saying Archibald's greatness produced the league's number one offense is overstating the case.

I was talking just about his peak season, I'm aware the Royals' offense wasn't very good before or after that.

[Owly]

Not a participant in this list (lack of time and lack of suitable knowledge are my main problems ), but I would like to ask when a person like Tiny Archibald will begin to gain traction. Seeing his name in the Bob Ryan-Isiah post made me ponder about him. I doubt he'll make top 50, but where is he fitting on ya'll's top 100?

I can see Tiny making my top 55. I'm really high on his peak (1972-73 - 34 points/11 assists on very good efficiency for his time, which translated to the best offense in the NBA - frankly, I'd take peak Tiny over Isiah and Iverson, as far as little guys are concerned). Not a great longevity as a star, which hurts him, but his prime was pretty good (especially peak). Archibald is in the same category as Kevin Johnson, for me - great peak/prime (comparable/better peak, a bit worse prime than KJ), rather weak longevity. For this reason, I'll probably support KJ somewhere in the late 40s, and Tiny will become a very serious candidate in the early 50s.

Checked on that team offense number and yes, in 1973, Royals had the best offense (and worst defense) in the NBA. However, in the 3 years around that which were also peak Archibald years, they finished 7th/17 (72), 13th/17 (75), and 14th/18 (76) -- Nate played only 35 games in 74 (14th). The main differences were the very efficient (but low scoring) Matt Guokas and Johnny Green on the 2 earlier teams v. flashy gunner Jimmy Walker on the 2 later teams, and a mix of role players moving in and out of the PF position -- in 1973, the great offense/zero defense year, they pulled the D'Antoni trick and used swingman Scott Wedman at PF most of the time giving up rebounding and defense for offensive mismatches. Archibald was also just more explosive before the injury in 74 though his role stayed similar afterwards (except for Jimmy Walker taking more of a second playmaker role).

So, I think just saying Archibald's greatness produced the league's number one offense is overstating the case.

Advance notice: This post is floating further off topic, including arguing with people who aren't here. Still, Archibald discussion is going on and the initial response is to Pen. Anyhow ...

It is worth noting that another difference between '73 and the rest is that Archibald is playing over 400 more minutes than any other season.

Of course this was also his best season and so if there's no "what if" leeway allowed then, unless someone is super into peaks, then since, as you note, this result and this level of impact wasn't typical and therefore what this is worth is debateable.

Regardless, there has been a school of thought that you can't win with your pg scoring a lot, which implicitly means you can't have a good O with your pg scoring a lot, since it has nothing to do with D. Archibald and Robertson (and to a lesser degree Magic) destroy this view.

One notable proponent was/is Bill Simmons

Kareem’s candidacy was crippled by dubious support for Archibald, the first player to lead the league in points and assists—and beyond that, minutes (a jaw-dropping 3,681), field goals, free throws, field goal attempts and free throw attempts—for a 36-win team that missed the playoffs. Can you really be “most valuable” when your team lost 46 freaking games? And don’t get me started on the foolishness of a point guard averaging nearly 27 shots and 10 free throw attempts per game. Isiah could have hogged the ball like that; same for Chris Paul, Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway before he blew out his knee. None of them did it. Why? Because it would have killed their teams! They were point guards! We haven’t seen anything like Tiny in ’73 before or since and it’s definitely for the best.

His career is remembered unfairly because everyone mentions the “only guy to lead the league in points and assists in the same year” first, which is like remembering Bruce Springsteen’s career by praising him for selling so many Born in the USA albums. If your point guard sets a dubious record like that, you probably didn’t win that many games (as the ’73 Royals proved by going 36–46).

I think it's rare to have a great offense with a (really) high scoring pg but it depends on the pg. Most wouldn't be able to do it efficiently (i.e. without huge turnovers and misses, which in turn might well annoy teammates and make such volume a bad idea), but just because there aren't many pg's good enough to do it it doesn't make those that do it bad.

An additional note is that obviously regarding the specific league leading thing, scoring leaders don't often tend to have great teammates, so Simmons may be confusing cause and effect (i.e. really there have been great pgs who scored in high volumes and created efficient offenses, and part of the reason they scored so much was teammates weren't so good; but he sees when pg's score a lot a la Robertson and Archibald the teams don't win, so it's not a good idea, even though they struggled on D, and had below par teammates).

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Tracy McGrady

T-Mac's quality of prime is Kobe-level though much shorter compared to Bryant. In his prime, he combined amazing pick-n-roll play with low turnovers, 3-point shooting, super-high volume/USG%, and solid defense. He never got to prove it really, but I think his game would flourish next to offensive talent.

His final Toronto year shouldn't be discounted either. He was a really good 2-way player with great rebounding and defensive activity.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Dikembe Mutombo, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dolph Schayes

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Paul Arizin, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[penbeast0]

Dolph Schayes – trex_8063
Vince Carter – stherkin
Sam jones – DQuinn1575
Tracy McGrady – ronnymac2

[john248]

My official vote is for Kevin McHale. Much has been said for his variety of post moves. He had a turnaround fadeaway, face-up jump shot, hooks, baseline spins, up and unders, etc...all due to good footwork and took advantage of his length. I don't think he had a variety like Olajuwon or Dantley, but McHale still ranks way up there. Roughly a 20/8/2/2blk guy with 120+ ORTG 11% TOV during his prime over an 8 year stretch. Good defender with good feet and length to disrupt whoever he was guarding.

McHale mainly faced single coverage most of the time since he was on the same team as Bird. The Celtics could stretch things out with Bird and Ainge as great 3 point shooters of that era, and Parish with his mid-range. Known as a black hole too, which again, would stand out more on a team with a passer like Bird and good combo guards in Ainge and DJ; Parish was solid enough in this regard. Granted, McHale wasn't asked to be a passing hub. Not an incredible rebounder either with a career 13.2% TRB; rebounding also didn't go up the year Bird was out in 89. Just 4 years starting but consistently good player from 84-91.

87 was a bit of an outlier year. Celtics bench wasn't particularly strong, and McHale did cover a lot of slack. Finished All-NBA 1st & All-defensive 1st the same year. Had a broken foot which brought his volume down but did well against Worthy on both sides in the Finals. You can argue he was top 5 this year. Also of note is the 1985 Finals where you could argue that McHale was the best on his team that series.

I see McHale as an elite #2 while still being all-defensive on the other end. The later part of his prime where he's averaging 22 PPG on 15 FGA is about the volume I think he could've handled earlier in his career. Legit 2-way player.

Actually waffling between McHale and McGrady now.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Since McHale is finally starting to get some traction I feel it is time to mention.

***Pau Gasol***


Guy was a great player the moment he entered the league.

-Won ROY averaging : 18 / 9 / 3apg / 2bpg on 57%TS.
-After Rook year he has a 10 year stretch of : 19 / 9 / 3apg / 2bpg on 58%TS.
So that is 11 full years of solid All-Star level production and impact.

Then in 2013 he averaged 14 / 9 / 4apg in the reg-season and 14 / 12 / 7apg in the playoffs.
I feel like he was still potentially an All-Star level guy this year on the right team but he struggled because Dwight forced him out of position. An older Gasol really needed to operate in the low post and Dwight didn't allow this consistently enough. He was often turned into a perimeter shooter.
In 2014 with Dwight gone Gasol went back to averaging 17 / 10 / 3.4apg / 2bpg.
Not bad for his 13th year.

Anyway he has very good longevity for this stage of the project and he has great averages period.
I like to think of Gasol as a slightly lesser version of Mchale.
He wasn't quite the scorer McHale was (though he was still one of the best scorers ever at the PF position) and he probably wasn't quite as good defensively (though he was still a very good defender).
On the other hand Gasol was a much better passer which is very valuable in a team sense and definitely helps minimize whatever edge McHale has offensively.

I think he should probably get in sometime over the next few spots.

Edit ::::

Gasol also has better longevitiy then Mchale.
His 11 year strech of All-Star level production is superior to McHales much shorter 8 year stretch.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #44 - Dolph Schayes

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ydo01.html

- 15 year career
- 12x all NBA (6 1st, 6 2nd)
- 3 top 5 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes
- 1x NBA champion
- Retired having played the most seasons, games and minutes in league history*

*This includes NBL play, which I know technically doesn't count for this project. Let's just leave it as a fun fact. He was an ironman regardless.

My post from last thread (click spoiler):

Spoiler:

What stands out most was his ability to get to the line and hit at an elite %: his career FT rate is .512, with a career high .654 in 50-51 (league avg was .399 that yr). His career FT% was 84.9% on 7.9 attempts per game. The league avg typically hovered around 70-73% throughout his career.

From the footage i've seen (currently looking for more), he had a consistent outside shot and good first step, with solid body control once he got into the lane. He also had a floater, which I find funny for some reason, but it was still effective. The nationals were also one of the best defensive teams in the league during his prime (yes, only 8-10 teams, but routinely ranked in the top 1-3 in DRTG).

Again, his marked consistency and longevity relative to his era really impressed me. In 54-55, he led the Nationals to the NBA title in 7 games over the #1 SRS ranked Pistons. One can point to inferior competition, but I think a player who was considered one of the best in the game for as long as he was deserves a spot in the top 50.

As I've said in past threads, there can't be an exact science to comparing eras and "era portability". I take a combination of how a player performed relative to his era, the strength of that era, and to a lesser degree how his game would translate in the modern era. Playing "time machine" is inherently subjective when you go back to the 50s and 60s. There's no way of knowing how those players would translate.

At the least, you have to acknowledge that using modern training programs and other ways of developing skill / physical ability would help these old era players adapt to the game. For schayes specifically, you can tell that he was a gifted player skill set-wise, and the set shot was only part of his game. He was known for having a very high arc on his shot, and he could also shoot on the move. I look at pettit getting voted in at 21 (who I'd say I was an average advocate for in that range), and to me schayes is a deserving pick 20+ spots later.

Schayes’ longevity and consistency throughout his career can be attributed to great mental toughness and work ethic. This is timeless. Per Jeremiah Tax of Sports Illustrated:

This is Dolph Schayes talking—the 6-foot-8, 220-pound Syracuse National who has been chosen on more All-Star squads than any player in NBA history and whose all-round skill is attested by consistent near-the-top leadership in three areas: allover scoring, the precise art of free throws, and rebounding. To some his words will carry a ring of naivete, which in this instance is, sadly, the price of sincerity:

"The most important thing any athlete does is 'get up' mentally before the competition starts. It's the difference between the ordinary, average performance and the extra effort that wins the game, the race, or whatever he's going to do … A lot of players in our league aren't really trying. Don't get me wrong, they give everything they've got—physically. But they just haven't learned how to get that extra something that comes from being 'up' mentally. The ones I admire most are guys like [Bill] Sharman and [Neil] Johnston. It's the psychological edge they bring along that makes them great."

"Dolph was all adolescent arms and legs in college," says NYU Coach Howard Cann. " He was a good player—no more than that. But his mind was set on being great. He was in the gym practicing every spare minute. We had to chase him out." Today, after seven years as a pro, Schayes is still pushing himself; according to Coach Paul Seymour, they have to turn out the lights at the Syracuse gym where the Nationals practice before he quits for the day.

http://www.si.com/vault/1957/01/14/5998 ... n-the-mind

Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview:

SLAM: You were a big man who played like a guard. How did you develop those skills?

SCHAYES: By playing in the New York City schoolyards, where the game was all about movement. I happened to be tall, but I learned the fundamentals well—the give and go, setting picks, passing, fast breaks and everything else we called “New York style.” I was a center in college but I was a high-post guy, feeding cutters and rebounding.

SLAM: Your range went out to 30 feet. How many more points would you have averaged with a three-point line?

SCHAYES: Quite a few, but I didn’t score out there as much as people think. My game was slashing to the basket, getting fouled and making three-point plays. But I hit enough deep shots to keep them honest and make them come out. The real secret to my success was I could shoot with either hand.

I also came across a post from APBRmetrics on comparing eras which was pretty well said:

Spoiler:

The issues you mentioned are just a few of the reasons why normalizing stats across eras is so difficult.

It's funny you mentioned free throw %, because that is probably the most "pure" and directly comparable stat out there, however, even FT% for the same player would be subject to some adjustment. Lighting was worse, the rims less consistent, and it wouldn't surprise me if guys were shooting at 9'11" baskets one night and at 10'1" baskets the next.

First, there is the question of what you're trying to measure: how a player instantly transplanted from 1950 would do in 2009, or how a player from 1950, given the training, nutrition, and equipment available today would produce in 2009. The latter assumption is at least somewhat possible to approximate, because we can see a constant evolution in how people play as they bridge various eras and gain access to new innovations/developments: Russell played against Chamberlain, who played against Jabbar, who played against Parish, Malone, Olajuwon, etc.

Rules changes: how would West perform with a 3 pt line and Reggie Miller without? How much do you add to West's point production, and given the change in strategy, how much would you subtract from a big man West was playing with?

Stat interpretations: how many assists would Oscar Robertson accumulate with a more liberal interpretation of an assist? On average, you would think his numbers would be higher, but what if the Cincy scorekeeper was using a liberal definition of assist back in the day? Applying a league avg. ast/FGM ratio might overstate the adjustment materially.

Pace adjustment: we can normalize pace, but that is a purely linear adjustment that impacts players consistently. Changing the pace of play could actually positively impact some players' touches per possession, while negatively impacting others. For example, it is observable that the slower the pace, the higher the frequency of high usage players. It is a lot more common to find a 28% usage player today than it was in the early 80s, even controlling for expansion. Presumably, that's because teams take more time to get the ball to their key player. At a slower pace, your number three option might have a reduced role in the offense while your number one option might play a larger role. For example, if Moses Malone's Sixers played a Knicks-style pace from the mid 90s, his scoring might not drop as much as you'd expect from a linear assumption, because the Sixers would more deliberately go to him on the offensive end. On the other hand, I could see a player like Steve Nash thrive even more playing at 105 possessions/game.

Talent around a player: this one is just about impossible due to the usage/efficiency guesswork, but if Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain switched teams, what would happen to their production?

League strength: we can measure the production of the same pool of players year over year and measure this against some baseline to get some sense of how league quality changes over time. For instance, if the same 200 players produce more the following year, we can assume the league got weaker. The issues of how much weaker and what the baseline expectation should be is open to debate.

Position evolution: some of this ties into rules changes, but casting that aside for a second, some positions (notably shooting guard) probably weren't fully developed and exploited. This was partially due to the lack of the 3, but ignoring this, the numbers posted from players at the "2" weren't very impressive. SGs were either your #2 ball handler or your #1 ball handler who also happened to be your best outside scorer. Just looking at the 10 NBA seasons prior to competition from the ABA, very few guys cast as a shooting guard were getting estimated PERs of 17+. Using a pretty liberal definition of shooting guard, there were only 4 who actually managed to pull it off for three of those ten years: Jerry West (PG/SG), Richie Guerin (PG?), Sam Jones, and Hal Greer.

General playing style issues: It's quite possible that some of Chamberlain's physical advantages would diminish in the modern era as he was so far ahead of the curve in strength training vs. his contemporaries. It's also entirely possible that a center on a slower pace modern team like an Ilgauskas or Smits wouldn't have the wheels needed to play an early 60s pace.

Normalizing play across eras will generally get you closer to a "pure" estimate of a player's production. The issue is that so many assumptions are being normalized that the margin of error becomes pretty substantial.

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/APBRme ... 26734.html

Carter and McGrady were no question 2 of the greatest talents of their generation. Freak athlete playmakers who could do a little bit of everything on the court. I think I give McGrady the benefit of the doubt more than the average fan regarding the 1st round exits. Between his injuries and just not being on great teams for part of his career, I can’t put it all on him. In respect to the project, though, his longevity leaves something to be desired.

The way carter has re-invented himself in his later years is no doubt impressive, but he may have wasted a good chunk of his career having not made that mental transition earlier. It’s a little disconcerting when you see a guy hustle more in his mid to late 30s than he did in his prime. I think both are deserving soon, but have some blotches on their career that make me think twice about them here.

[And of course this is a total what if, but who knows what their legacies look like if they stayed in toronto together.]

[lukekarts]

I’m going to start to make a case for Willis Reed here: 7 x All Star, 1 x League MVP, 2 x Finals MVP, 1 x All NBA 1st, 4 x NBA 2nd, 1 x All Defensive 1st, 2 x Championships. He lead the league in Defensive Win Shares and Win Shares too, so the accolades were not ‘hollow’.

Some details around the 1970 finals (remembering Reeds missed some time in this series):

Willis Reed: 23 points / 10.5 rebounds (other Knicks stats: Dave DeBusschere - 19 / 12.6, Dick Barnett - 18.6 / 4.3, Walt Frazier - 17.6 / 10.4 – which includes the inflated/false game 7 assist total).

In the game Reed missed entirely, Wilt scored 45 points and the Lakers won by over 20 points. Wilt averaged 19.3 ppg versus Reed for the rest of the series.

Beyond the boxscore, Willis was revered for his 'intangibles' (which have favoured some players in the poll so far, most recently Zo). He was a very tough character and put his body on the line.

Also, somewhat amusingly: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/willis- ... kers-fight (some great footage here) - he didn't take any crap

I also checked back at the last top 100 just for a bit of comparison, quite surprising to see how perceptions… or voters, have changed:
34) Artis Gilmore
39) Dwight Howard
43) Willis Reed
45) Dave Cowens
47) Bill Walton
48) Alonzo Mourning
55) Bob Lanier
57) Wes Unseld
66) Nate Thurmond
67) Robert Parish
71) Dikembe Mutombo
81) Ben Wallace